The Peerless General Finance And Investment Co Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
- 4: The primary liability and onus is on the Dept to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed. Deposits collected by a finance company are capital receipts and not revenue receipts. The fact that the deposits are credited to the profit and loss account is irrelevant. The true nature of the receipts have to be seen and not the entry in the books of account (All imp judgements referred)
It is the true nature and quality of the receipt and not the head under which it is entered in the account books that would prove decisive. If a receipt is a trading receipt, the fact that it is not so shown in the account books of the assessee would not prevent the assessing authority from treating it as trading receipt. It has been held by the Supreme court that the primary liability and onus is on the Department to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed
Global Estates vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
- 80IB(10)(a): There shall be stay of judgement in Global Reality 379 ITR 107 (MP) where it was held that issuance of completion certificate, after the cut off date by the Local Authority but, mentioning the date of completion of project before the cut off date, does not fulfill the condition specified in clause (a) of Section 80IB (10) read with Explanation (ii) thereunder
We accordingly hold that issuance of completion certificate, after the cut off date by the Local Authority but, mentioning the date of completion of project before the cut off date, does not fulfill the condition specified in clause (a) of Section 80IB (10) read with Explanation (ii) thereunder. We reject the argument of the assessee that the effect of amended clause (a) of sub-Section 10 of Section 80IB, which has come into force with effect from 1st April, 2005, has retrospective effect or that it is unjust in any manner or incapable of compliance at all
Kalpana Ashwin Shah vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
- 220(6) Stay of demand: The decision of the authorities to demand payment of 20% of the disputed demand is in consonance with the department’s circulars. There are no extra ordinary reasons for imposing condition lighter than one imposed by the authorities. The contention that the assessee that he received no consideration and no tax could have been demanded from him is subject matter of the Appeal proceedings and cannot be a ground for lifting the rigor of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the disputed tax pending appeal
The decision of the authorities is in consonance with the department’s circulars. We do not find any extra ordinary reasons for imposing condition lighter than one which has been imposed by the said authorities. The contention of the Petitioner that he had received no consideration at the time of transfer of the tenancy of immovable commercial property of which he is the owner and that therefore no tax could have been demanded from him, would be subject matter of the Appeal proceedings. This is not a ground for lifting the rigor of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the disputed tax pending appeal
YourSuccessStory 